Post on 10-Mar-2018
1
Davis, Julie M. (2005) Educating for sustainability in the early years: Creating cultural change in a child care setting. Australian Journal of Environmental Education 21:pp. 47-55.
Educating for sustainability in the early years: Creating cultural change in a child care setting
Dr Julie Davis Centre for Learning Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
Australia.
Email: j.davis@qut.edu.au
Bionote
Dr Julie Davis is a researcher in the Centre for Learning Innovation, and lecturer in the School of Early Childhood, at the Queensland University of Technology. Abstract The early childhood education field has been slow to take up the challenge of
sustainability. However, Brisbane’s Campus Kindergarten is one early education centre
that is making serious efforts in this regard. In 1997, Campus Kindergarten initiated its
Sustainable Planet Project involving a variety of curriculum and pedagogical activities
that have led to enhanced play spaces, reduced waste, lowered water consumption and
improved biodiversity. Such changes are not curriculum ‘add-ons’, however. A study of
curriculum decision-making processes shows that a culture of sustainability permeates
the centre. This has been by a process of slowly evolving changes that have led to a
reculturation of many social and environmental practices. This study also shows that very
young children, in the presence of passionate and committed teachers, are quite capable
of engaging in education for sustainability and in ‘making a difference’.
Keywords: early childhood, collaboration, educational change, empowerment, leadership, professional development, sustainability
2
Introduction
There are very few early education centres, in Australia and internationally, that
demonstrate exemplary environmental education practice and only a small number of
research publications that actually focus on early childhood education for sustainability
(Davis & Elliott, 2003; New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency, 2003).
Consequently, there is also a lack of indepth studies of how an early childhood service -
catering for children in the years before school - might actually go about incorporating
sustainability into their day-to-day curriculum practices. This paper, based on a study
undertaken in a long day care centre in Brisbane, Australia, seeks to fill this gap.
The research involved two university researchers who, with an eight-year professional
relationship with the centre, undertook a focussed study in 2004. This utilised
ethnographic inquiry to explicate the initial triggers for environmental education; how the
curriculum has changed over time; how environmental issues/ topics are raised and acted
upon; and how sustainability thinking and practices have been integrated into the cultural
practices of the centre.
To explore these topics, the following research techniques were utilised: participant
observation; indepth interviews and email conversations with key participants; focus
group discussions with staff and with parents; a parent survey; and the collection of
documents such as prospectuses, newsletters, planning guides, photographs and project
notes. This latter also included the collection and analysis of curriculum documentation
developed jointly by the children and teachers, including records of dialogue,
photographs, drawings, stories and curriculum webs.
The study was conducted ‘with’ and ‘for’ participants rather than ‘on’ participants (Heron
& Reason, 2001). Hence, data collection, analysis, and reporting employed processes
designed to build relationships and dialogue within and between researchers, participants
and the wider community. This partnership approach with and between the stakeholders
was highly valued by both the researchers and the Campus Kindergarten community.
The research setting
Campus Kindergarten is an early education centre serving a culturally diverse, well
educated community, situated on the St Lucia campus of the University of Queensland in
Brisbane. Opening hours are from 8.00 am till 5.30 pm, Mondays to Fridays. The centre
3
caters for children aged two and a half years to around six years, from a wide range of
language and cultural backgrounds. Each day around sixty-three children, many attending
part time, are catered for, with seventy-nine children across three age groups attending
weekly. There are nineteen staff members of whom six are full time. Thus the
organization of both the staff and children’s arrangements is quite complex.
The centre has an educational philosophy that is child-centred, holistic and futures-
oriented, where rights, respect and trust permeate the culture and curriculum (Prospectus
2004, p. 1). This means that the teachers seek to interweave into everyday practices, their
care and concern for children along with concern and respect for the centre’s natural and
built environments. These qualities underpin all facets of Campus Kindergarten’s
organisation and culture, including the centre’s Sustainable Planet Project.
The Sustainable Planet Project
Origins
This project, a ‘whole of centre’ initiative, had its origins in 1997, the outcome of a
facilitated team-building exercise. At the time, the teachers were seeking a shared project
that would also create greater complementarity between their personal and working lives.
As a past staff member commented, “I felt that I wasn’t putting enough of my own
personality into the room. It was great to give toward the children but there was none of
me in there”.
The team-building process revealed a common interest amongst the staff - the
environment. Consequently, under the banner of the Sustainable Planet Project,
individual staff members were able to ‘add value’ to their work as early childhood
educators by including personal interests such as gardening, wildlife conservation and
recycling into their day-to-day work at the centre. From the start, the project had an
action-oriented focus, encapsulated in the sub-title of the project “Saving our planet:
become a conscious part of the solution”.
First steps Once the idea of the Sustainable Planet Project was formulated, the teachers began
working with the children on numerous small-scale, mini-projects allied with their own
particular environmental interests. These included:
4
Figure 1: Initial mini-projects in the Sustainable Planet Project
(Campus Kindergarten teachers, 1997) While all these mini-projects still continue, initially the Sustainable Planet Project had its
operational challenges. A key barrier was the variable levels of knowledge and
experience regarding environmental matters amongst the staff leading to periods of great
activity and times when interest and energy waned. There were times when other
priorities and projects demanded time, energy and resources. There have also been
frustrations with the level of parental commitment to some initiatives, especially the
‘litterless’ lunch’ policy which requires parents to pack the children’s lunches – brought
daily from home – in ways that minimise pre-packaged food. Some parents have resisted
the concept, seeking to explain why changing one’s lunch-making habits was an
unreasonable demand applicable to others but not to themselves. These days, the teachers
are prepared for such resistance and seek to work collaboratively with families rather
than adopting a strict policy position.
Later developments
As time has progressed and the project has evolved, all these mini-projects have become
inculcated into everyday routines at the centre and new projects are continually added. In
effect, the centre operates with an ‘environmental ethic’ that has become part of its
5
culture. To exemplify how this has happened, two newer projects, ‘Water Conservation’
and the ‘Shopping Trolley Project’, are outlined.
The Water Conservation Project Central to curriculum practices at Campus Kindergarten is the belief that children can be
active, informed learners, capable of impacting positively on their local environment. A
project about water conservation, for example, was sparked when concerns were
expressed by both children and teachers about excess water use. At a time when drought
was well advanced across Australia, it was noted that the “Kindy friends were pouring
out more than they could drink and then tipping the rest into the garden” ("Water
Conservation" Documentation, 2002). A group meeting was held to discuss the issue,
eliciting responses that demonstrated the children’s already quite sophisticated
understandings about water matters. In following weeks, discussions, problem solving
opportunities and experimentation further built upon what the children and teachers
knew. Then, after an interval of several months, the topic of water conservation was
rekindled with the reading of a book about rivers. Consequently, a ‘whole centre’ project
about water conservation emerged, organised mainly by the preschoolers.
The teachers worked with the children to conduct research on where household/centre
water comes from, revisited earlier classroom documentation on the topic, discussed the
concept of drought, and explored photographs and newspaper articles featured in the
local weekly community newspaper. As the children’s knowledge about water issues
grew, their inquiries turned to water conservation actions. They made signs, drew
pictures and wrote messages about what was needed to conserve water at Campus
Kindergarten. These were located at all the water points around the centre, for example,
near the sandpit, beside the washbasin tap, and on toilet cisterns, reminding everyone to
be careful users of water. Examples of signage included:
Mia: Please don’t leave the tap running. Layla: When you flush the toilet, press the small button. Andrew: Turn the hose off when you are finished.
6
Figure 2: Greta’s sign for saving water.
This project shows that even very young children are able to critically respond to
environmental issues. With appropriate guidance from supportive staff, the children
learned that water was precious, noticed they were using a lot of it, recognised
community concern about water use, and did something about it. Furthermore, water
conservation habits also transferred to home. As a parent commented during a focus
group discussion:
The water issue… he’s bringing it into bath time. We’re only allowed to fill the bath to a certain level and we’re not allowed to put the tap on again!
(Parent focus group, July 2004) The Shopping Trolley Project This project is another example of how sustainability principles and child empowerment
pedagogies have developed at Campus Kindergarten. This project originated when the
children arrived at the centre one morning to find a shopping trolley dumped in the
playground, raising many questions about why and how it happened to be there. The
preschoolers’ initial brainstorming came up with the following ideas:
Ryan: A burglar dressed up as a normal person, got the shopping trolley and took it to Campus Kindy.
Emily: He put it in there in the night and quickly ran away. Teacher: Well what should we do about it? John: Ring up.
7
Hamish: Take it back to the shop. Fizza: Ring them and let them know.
("The Trolley" Documentation 2003)
The children were concerned not only about the morality of stealing, but also about the
visual impact and damage that dumped trolleys and other rubbish have on the local
environment. It was decided to write a letter to the ‘Coles people’ – operators of the local
supermarket - informing the store manager that their shopping trolley had been found and
that there were more ‘stolen’ trolleys in the area. The children also listed ideas for
stopping such behaviour as well as offering to return the trolley to the store.
They also wanted to write to ‘the burglars’ expressing their concerns about their
behaviour. Not knowing their addresses, alternative ways of sending a letter were
explored. In the end, a decision was made to write to the local newspaper in the hope that,
with its local community readership, the burglars would read of their concerns.
8
Figure 3: Letter to the supermarket (Campus Kindergarten preschoolers).
Their story made front page news in this local newspaper, along with a photo story
outlining the children’s ethical and aesthetic concerns about stolen and dumped shopping
trolleys. There was also editorial comment entitled ‘Young teach us a worthwhile lesson’,
where the editor praised the children for their social responsibility.
With local attention adding momentum to the children’s interest, a visit to the
supermarket was then organised. During a tour of the car parks, the children identified
that existing signs discouraging customers from taking shopping trolleys outside the
shopping centre could only be read if customers actually utilised the car parks. However,
the children had already determined that those who had ‘borrowed’ the trolleys were not
car owners. Consequently, they suggested to the supermarket management that they (the
children) make new signs which were then posted on the supermarket’s main doors,
targeting the ‘shopping trolley thieves’.
Figure 4: Example of children’s signage to the ‘trolley thieves’ (Alexander).
What this project shows is that, as Hart (1997) proposes, even young children have the
capacity for active participation in decisions and actions about their education which
helps build their political literacy. Using Hart’s ‘ladder of children’s participation’ as a
measure, the children and teachers at this centre appear to be operating at the top rungs of
9
the participation ladder where the lowest rungs signify non-participation while the top
rung identifies the highest levels of political literacy and participation. At this top level,
children are highly active politically, both as curriculum decision-makers and as social
and environmental activists.
Figure 5: Ladder of children’s participation (Hart, 1997)
Environmental Outcomes
No only does the Sustainable Planet Project promote active citizenship in these young
learners, but it has also led to tangible environmental outcomes. These include: enhanced
play spaces; over two hundred new native plants in the grounds; removal of weeds and
other inappropriate plants within the grounds; and improved ‘eco-friendliness’ for local
native animal species. Another major benefit resulting from the improved outdoor
environment is that multiple new opportunities for provoking curiosity and rich
environmental learning have also emerged.
10
Additionally, the project has led to improved resource use and waste management
including: bottle and cardboard recycling; reductions in A4 paper usage (from three
reams/ month in 2003 to one ream/ month in 2004); bulk-ordering of products; the
litterless lunch policy; and the establishment of a composting system and worm farm for
food scraps. As a direct result of such measures, the number of large waste bins requiring
collection has been reduced from two bins/ day to half a bin/ day. Other environmental
changes include switching to less environmentally-harmful kitchen and cleaning
products, and, recently, the installation of a large water barrel (around 50 litres) into the
sandpit. This is filled only once a day and the children learn to monitor its use. Although
water consumption figures are not available, the teachers surmise that this strategy has
dramatically cut water consumption. Collectively, these changes have considerably
reduced the centre’s ‘environmental footprint’.
Creating a learning culture for change
As this study has shown, creating change at Campus Kindergarten has been incremental,
iterative and small scale - an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary process, advancing
slowly over almost a decade. Educational change theorists, influenced by chaos-
complexity theory applied to social systems, explain this by recognising that (in this case)
the childcare centre is a complex, adaptive system, rather than a stable, rigid organisation.
Rather than change occurring through revolutionary processes where the old is quickly
ushered out by radical reforms and replaced by new processes and structures, it emanates
from the history of the organisation and the people interacting in it; a combination of
tradition and innovation underpinned by the quality of the people and relationships
already in an organisation (Larson, 1999).
For these reasons, change is much more likely to be slow, small scale and imperfect,
reflecting the complex, dynamic nature of the setting in which change is occurring. This
signifies a process of slowly-emerging cultural change with success vacillating between
stability and disorder (Stacey, 2000); where uncertainty is seen as inevitable; and
creativity, innovation and change are normal rather than aberrant. Larson (1999)
comments that innovation created by changing the culture of an organisation does not
usually create momentous changes but rather, ‘small wins’ which have the capacity to
magnify into large-scale changes into the future.
11
According to Stacey (2000), one of the leading organisational change theorist working
with chaos-complexity theory, change that takes account of complexity emerges by
spontaneous self-organising evolution, requiring political interaction and learning in
groups, rather than from systematic progress towards someone else’s predetermined goals
or ‘visions’. It is through such devolved, dynamic and inclusive processes that
‘professional learning communities’ (Fullan, 1999; Senge, 1990) are created and
sustained. This is not a top-down change model, nor one designed to fit a number of
settings. It is unique, belongs to the participants, and they are responsible both
individually and collectively for what happens. The process is one of local capacity
building for change and innovation.
Leadership
Underpinning such reculturing change processes is the leadership and management
framework of the organisation. Learning organisations require patterns that develop self-
organisation and ownership, rather than top-down hierarchal processes. As Fullan (2001)
comments “effective leaders are energy creators, creating harmony, forging consensus,
setting high standards, and developing a ‘try this’ future orientation”. According to
Fleener (2002), citing Stacey (1992), problems are conceived as communicative obstacles
or barriers to creativity, not issues to be overcome in order to re-establish stability and
order. As Megan, the Centre Director, commented in interview, “I’ve been mindful of
giving staff support and encouraging understanding…I’ve tried to motivate them so that
they have felt they’ve got time to participate and coordinate projects and that they have
understood what the project is about”. This approach is corroborated by one of the
teachers who said of Megan “She really encourages us to think... and you actually work
through a lot of issues” (Teacher focus group, March 2004).
Another important element of leadership developed within a learning organisation
approach is that all members of staff are viewed as leaders, each with their own
distinctive abilities to initiate and implement change. Such democratic, self-generating
notions of leadership are built upon trusting and collaborative relationships between
colleagues. At Campus Kindergarten, teamwork and mentoring are now just part of the
centre’s normal social practices.
Professional development
12
Leadership based on an understanding of complex systems also shapes approaches to
staff development. At Campus Kindergarten, for example, staff members have numerous
opportunities to learn about and critically reflect upon their teaching and learning. This
includes regular attendances at conferences and workshops, undertaking courses to
upgrade qualifications, networking through professional associations, and actively
seeking visitors to the centre who can share expert knowledge. At staff meetings and
team planning sessions, issues of curriculum and pedagogy are regularly discussed and
debated. The teachers also comment that they learn a great deal from each other in lunch
room conversations and through other informal exchanges. Together, both formal and
informal approaches to professional development have generated a ‘grass roots’
collaborative learning culture which supports learning for everyone – the children,
teachers, families and the community at large.
‘Small wins’ and ‘scaling up’
As the Sustainable Planet Project illustrates, creating cultural change in a setting is, at
best, a process that builds over years rather than weeks or months, so appreciating that
change start slowly and is likely to be of small scale is pivotal, lest frustration sets in.
Ultimately, such change is the key to continuous organisational renewal (Larson, 1999)
and is also a strategy that works now, when we cannot afford to wait for large-scale
systemic changes that eventually fail to arrive. It is also a strategy that offers leverage
beyond the immediate context as small-scale changes become the route to more
substantial organisational improvements. Provided the changes go deep enough in terms
of large numbers of people in an organisation making such changes, ‘small wins’ can be
potent as springboards for deeper and wider organisational change and renewal. Thus,
chaos-complexity theory informs us that at some indefinable, critical point, small changes
become magnified and cascade upwards through the system. Furthermore, these critical
points are everywhere. As a result, small wins can set in motion further processes for
continued small wins − a strategy that strengthens organisational capacity and the ability
to solve larger-scale problems (Larson, 1999, p. xxiii). This is because there is a flow of
capabilities rather than products that are transferred (Fullan, 1999). This happens both
within the setting, enhancing its capacity to tackle bigger, more complex issues, but also
outside, where people who become inspired by changes in the original setting, start to
create changes in new settings and situations. At Campus Kindergarten, an expanding
13
range of environmental issues have been tackled as people have grown in knowledge and
confidence.
However, scaling up must progress beyond the original setting if there is to be the
magnification of capabilities needed to create large-scale changes into the future. To this
end, staff at Campus Kindergarten actively participate in a broad range of outreach
activities with their professional peers, aimed at encouraging others to reculture for
sustainability. For example, they regularly present at conferences, give lectures and
conduct workshops based on their philosophy and practices. They provide opportunities
for student teachers and others to visit the centre, to see for themselves what they do and
how. Furthermore, they willingly support and contribute to the publication of articles and
papers (such as this) in order to share their experiences more widely.
Conclusion This paper has sought to highlight how one early education centre has faced the
challenges of sustainability. Rather than ignore the issues, the teachers at Campus
Kindergarten have engaged the support of children, families and the broader community
in making changes – ‘small wins’ - to many of their day-to-day practices, and are playing
a part in creating a new generation of stewards of Earth. This has come about because a
culture of sustainability has been created, built on an educational philosophy that deeply
values young children as active participants in a learning community, and where open
and trusting relationships permeate what the teachers do. The staff also encourage others
to think about sustainability – and support their actions - by engaging in a broad range of
professional and community education activities. As a consequence, they are helping to
change the environmental attitudes, values and practices of many other adults who work
with, and care about, young children. In summary, Campus Kindergarten is a learning
community with a culture that deliberately engages in pro-people, pro-environment and
pro-futures education for sustainability.
References Campus Kindergarten. (2002). Water Conservation Documentation. Brisbane. Campus Kindergarten. (2003). The Trolley Documentation. Brisbane. Campus Kindergarten. (2004). Prospectus. Brisbane. Davis, J., & Elliott, S. (2003). Early Childhood Environmental Education: Making it
Mainstream. Canberra: Early Childhood Australia.
14
Fleener, M. J. (2002). Curriculum dynamics: Recreating Heart. New York: Peter Lang. Fullan, M. (1999). Change Forces: The Sequel. London: Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change (3rd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press. Hart, R. (1997). Children'sparticipation: The theory and practice of involving young
citizens in community development and environmental care. New York: UNICEF. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research 'with'
rather than 'on' people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp. 179-188). London: Sage.
Larson, R. L. (1999). Changing Schools from the Inside Out (2nd ed.). Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing.
New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Patches of Green. Retrieved 15 August, 2003, from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/whocares/patchesofgreen.htm
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. Sydney: Random House.
Stacey, R. (2000). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity (3rd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.